Apotheosis and Clement of Alexandria

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Oh really, FARMS is a fan of Clement? Did you know he died after 200?

whoopy dooda. some teachings survive, some don't, fool.

[SeattleUte]

The Greek was always there, and remains, even in the Christianity practiced by Mormons, though virtually all Mormons don't know it. Paul, a Hellenized Jew, was writing his epistles in Greek when the public started calling his sect "Christianity" and his followers "Christians." Later, after destruction of the Second Temple, over forthy years after Christ's death, the Gospels were first written, apparenlty not by men or women who knew Christ, but certainly by expert practitioners of Greek philosophy and language. They were originally writtien in the "Kings English" of ancient Greek. The Greeks were a but for cause of Christianity. Solon's quote from Clement is not an example of a belief in deification of any human but Christ, and it is an echo of Philo's writings on the Logos. Philo, who probably never heard of Christians, has been for over a thousand years counted as one of the "Fathers of the Church." Again, this is as simple as saying British values and culture were a but for cause of the American Republic.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The Greek was always there, and remains, even in the Christianity practiced by Mormons, though virtually all Mormons don't know it. Paul, a Hellenized Jew, was writing his epistles in Greek when the public started calling his sect "Christianity" and his followers "Christians." Later, after destruction of the Second Temple, over forthy years after Christ's death, the Gospels were first written, apparenlty not by men or women who knew Christ, but certainly by expert practitioners of Greek philosophy and language. They were originally writtien in the "Kings English" of ancient Greek. The Greeks were a but for cause of Christianity. Solon's quote from Clement is not an example of a belief in deification of any human but Christ, and it is an echo of Philo's writings on the Logos. Philo, who probably never heard of Christians, has been for over a thousand years counted as one of the "Fathers of the Church." Again, this is as simple as saying British values and culture were a but for cause of the American Republic.

Without denying this perspective, it is oversimplified.

For example,

From Eusebius. . .

quote:For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Without denying this perspective, it is oversimplified.

For example,

From Eusebius. . .

quote:For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

Papias worked in the first half of the second century, over 100 years after Christ died, and Eusebius in the late third century, early fourth.

[pelagius]

I think you are being unfair here: to mormons in general and FARMS in particular. No one here (although no doubt you can find your fair share of Mormons who deny Greek influence but you can probably find Mormons that Believe Jesus spoke in Jacobian English so that is hardly remarkable) is denying the importance of Greek thought or influence upon early Christians. However, when Mormons usually talk about Hellenization they are talking about more of a full embrace. For example Reynolds' clearly has in mind articulating "Christian belief and understanding using the content and methods of philosophy" in a systematic way.

Also, some of your paragraph is false. For example,

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Later, after destruction of the Second Temple, over forthy years after Christ's death, the Gospels were first written, apparenlty not by men or women who knew Christ, but certainly by expert practitioners of Greek philosophy and language.

This is clearly not true for all of the gospels. Find me some reputable scholars that actually believe that Mark wrote in sophisticated Greek. Every scholar I read says that Mark's Greek is awful. In fact, Matthew and Luke often correct Mark's poor Greek when they use Mark as a source.

Note this is not to deny the importance of Greek culture and language to early Christianity. However, it does point out that you are overstating things a bit and like all of us here there appears to be some gaps in your understanding of Christianity.

I provide you with evidence that FARMS is moving away from understanding the apostasy through the lens of Hellenization. This should make you happy. SU and FARMS are aligned. You could go write for them. However, you continue to rail against position that doesn't really exist anymore.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I think you are being unfair here: to mormons in general and FARMS in particular. No one here (although no doubt you can find your fair share of Mormons who deny Greek influence but you can probably find Mormons that Believe Jesus spoke in Jacobian English so that is hardly remarkable) is denying the importance of Greek thought or influence upon early Christians. However, when Mormons usually talk about Hellenization they are talking about more of a full embrace. For example Reynolds' clearly has in mind articulating "Christian belief and understanding using the content and methods of philosophy" in a systematic way.

Also, some of your paragraph is false. For example,



This is clearly not true for all of the gospels. Find me some reputable scholars that actually believe that Mark wrote in sophisticated Greek. Every scholar I read says that Mark's Greek is awful. In fact, Matthew and Mark often correct Mark's poor Greek when they use Mark as a source.

Note this is not to deny the importance of Greek culture and language to early Christianity. However, it does point out that you are overstating things a bit and like all of us here there appears to be some gaps in your understanding of Christianity (Archea's signature is appropriate here).

I provide you with evidence that FARMS is moving away from understanding the through the lens of Hellenization. This should make you happy. SU and FARMS are aligned. You could go write for them. However, you continue to rail against position that doesn't really exist anymore.

john is considered much better Greek, but Mark the first of the synoptic gospels is considered very poor koine Greek, with Luke and Matthew improving but not that much better.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I think you are being unfair here: to mormons in general and FARMS in particular. No one here (although no doubt you can find your fair share of Mormons who deny Greek influence but you can probably find Mormons that Believe Jesus spoke in Jacobian English so that is hardly remarkable) is denying the importance of Greek thought or influence upon early Christians. However, when Mormons usually talk about Hellenization they are talking about more of a full embrace. For example Reynolds' clearly has in mind articulating "Christian belief and understanding using the content and methods of philosophy" in a systematic way.

Also, some of your paragraph is false. For example,



This is clearly not true for all of the gospels. Find me some reputable scholars that actually believe that Mark wrote in sophisticated Greek. Every scholar I read says that Mark's Greek is awful. In fact, Matthew and Mark often correct Mark's poor Greek when they use Mark as a source.

Not this is not to deny the importance of Greek culture and language to early Christianity. However, it does point out that you are overstating things a bit and like all of us here there appears to be some gaps in your understanding of Christianity.

I provide you with evidence that FARMS is moving away from understanding the through the lens of Hellenization. This should make you happy. SU and FARMS are aligned. You could go write fore them However, you continue to rail against position that doesn't really exist anymore.

I'm glad at least you and I (and perhaps some at FARMS) agree on the material stuff. The quality of Mark's Greek is of course a trivial point. He wrote in Greek for a Greek speaking audience, employing Greek traditions. I've read many times that by and large the Gospels were written in excellent Greek, but it's Greek to me. Here's the main point:

"Audience

"The general theory is that Mark is a Hellenistic gospel, written primarily for an audience of Greek-speaking residents of the Roman Empire. Jewish traditions are explained, clearly for the benefit of non-Jews (e.g., Mark 7:1–4; 14:12; 15:42). Aramaic words and phrases are also expanded upon by the author, e.g., ταλιθα κουμ (talitha koum, Mark 5:41); κορβαν (Corban, Mark 7:11); αββα (abba, Mark 14:36).

"Alongside these Hellenistic influences, Mark makes use of the Old Testament in the form in which it had been translated into Greek, the Septuagint, for instance, Mark 1:2; 2:23–28; 10:48b; 12:18–27; also compare 2:10 with Daniel 7:13–14. Those who seek to show the non-Hellenistic side of Mark note passages such as 1:44; 5:7 ("Son of the Most High God"; cf. Genesis 14:18–20); Mark 7:27; and Mark 8:27–30. These also indicate that the audience of Mark has kept at least some of its Jewish heritage, and also that the gospel might not be as Hellenistic as it first seems.

"The gospel of Mark contains many literary genres. Paul's letters were already surfacing around 40–60, and the Gospel of Mark came at a time when Christian faith was rising. Professor Dennis R MacDonald writes:

"Whether as a response to the Jewish War (66–70) or to the deaths of the earliest followers of Jesus, or to the need of a definitive version of Jesus' life, or to objectionable theological trends, the author of the Gospel of Mark recast traditional materials into a dramatic narrative climaxing in Jesus' death. It is not clear precisely what kind of book the author set out to compose, insofar as no document written prior to Mark exactly conforms with its literary properties. Its themes of travel, conflict with supernatural foes, suffering, and secrecy resonate with Homer's Odyssey and Greek romantic novels. Its focus on the character, identity, and death of a single individual reminds one of ancient biographies. Its dialogues, tragic outcome, and peculiar ending call to mind Greek drama. Some have suggested that the author created a new, mixed genre for narrating the life and death of Jesus.[33]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

[Archaea]

Excellent Greek? They wrote in Koine Greek which is much simplified. The most complex of the four is John, which employed some knowledge of Greek and Hebrew thought in the logos discussion.

Even I, a complete idiot on Greek can see how Matthew, Mark and Luke are fairly unsophisticated in comparison to difficult passages of Homer, or Plato.

[pelagius]

Honestly SU, I get the feeling that you are arguing against intellectual thought in the church when you left it rather than intellectual thought in the church today. I don't think my view is idiosyncratic when it comes to these things in intellectual Mormon circles. It would have been 30 years ago. I just don't think you will find hardly any Mormons versed in these issues that would deny that you must understand the influence of Greek culture and thought (as well as Hebrew thought) to understand Paul. This is really uncontroversial. I spoke up not because I disagree with you broadly speaking about the importance of Greek language and learning but because in my view you continue to impugn FARMS when as near as I can tell you basic agree on this point.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Excellent Greek? They wrote in Koine Greek which is much simplified. The most complex of the four is John, which employed some knowledge of Greek and Hebrew thought in the logos discussion.

Even I, a complete idiot on Greek can see how Matthew, Mark and Luke are fairly unsophisticated in comparison to difficult passages of Homer, or Plato.

Arch, I think your signature ironically applies to the conversation in this thread (except for the original post by Solon).